Website founded by
Milan Velimirović
in 2006
10:15 UTC
| |
MatPlus.Net  Forum Competitions Schwalbe Theme Tourney 213 |
| |
|
|
|
|
You can only view this page!
| | Page: [Previous] [Next] 1 2 | | (21) Posted by Geir Sune Tallaksen Østmoe [Saturday, Jun 21, 2014 21:50] |
I'd be interested to see the BB+. I spent a lot of time on it, but I still only managed 18 mates.
| | | (22) Posted by Joost de Heer [Sunday, Jun 22, 2014 08:24] |
Geir Sune Tallaksen Østmoe wrote:
>I'd be interested to see the BB+. I spent a lot of time on it, but I still only managed 18 mates.
Michael Schreckenbach, Andreas Witt
 (= 14+8 )
24 mates by BB.
| | | (23) Posted by Per Olin [Sunday, Jun 22, 2014 12:30] |
The problem diagrammed in post 11 by Karol Mlynka and Hauke Reddmann, DD task, 40 forced mates, is an outstanding constructional achievement. Congratulations to both authors!
Where does this problem stand in FIDE Album perspective? Is it a fairy chess problem? Is it a retro problem? The retro element is to assure that the position is legal, does this make it a retro problem? Where does it belong in the Album classification system?
| | | (24) Posted by Kevin Begley [Sunday, Jun 22, 2014 18:02] |
I am hardly willing to endure the pretense that a proper classification (of any problem) within the FIDE sub-Albums can possibly constitute a valid question...
I will simply wish everyone good luck in maintaining the illusion that the sub-Albums collation provides any framework for obtaining a valid answer.
But, I will join you in congratulating the authors, on a marvelous constructional achievement (which is certainly deserving of space for appreciation).
| | | (25) Posted by Hauke Reddmann [Sunday, Jun 22, 2014 19:59]; edited by Hauke Reddmann [14-06-22] |
<shrugs> Assuming that a judge likes the position so much he wants
to give an extra award in the Schwalbe informal (not that probable,
but not that far-fetched either) it would go to the Schwalbe
section "Chess math" (which is bundled with Retro in terms of
responsible editor, but judging goes outside the retro category
with extra awards - Retro also contains Proof Game).
So FIDE album *could* handle things analogously. (Uhm, does anyone
know of an actual FIDE album problem falling under "Chess math" in the
widest sense?)
Vested interest declaration: None. I don't submit to the Album. :-)
Hauke
| | | (26) Posted by Thomas Brand [Monday, Jun 23, 2014 07:10] |
Indeed, these problems would belong to the "Chess Math / others" sub-section of Die Schwalbe retro section. And that seems to be the general view for FIDE-Album, too: For the current Album period (2010-2012) there were a few chess math entries for the retro section, and some constructional tasks had been published there, too: e.g. see 1436 and 1437 in the 1945-1955 Album.
By the way, "of course" proof games belong to the retro section like defensive retractors, too: In all these kinds of problems the "history" of the diagram is interersting (retro), while in all the other sections, be it #2, be it help mate, be it endgame studies, the "future" of the diagram position is relevant.
| | | (27) Posted by Kevin Begley [Monday, Jun 23, 2014 09:20]; edited by Kevin Begley [14-06-23] |
In a valid retro classification, it must be impossible to avoid an encounter with history.
And, to prove that history is not inherent in the proofgame, I offer the following proofgame, which contains absolutely no history:
scheme
 (= 16+16 )
PG 0.5
if you approve zero-positions, ask about my 19 twins.
To prove that math is not inherent in the "chess math" section... we may now simply count to 40.
And then there is the endgame tablebase, to prove that studies no longer require any study.
The helpmate has no place in fairies, the selfmate has no place in fairies, and the help-selfmate, well, that clearly belongs in fairies, because it consists entirely of orthodox elements...
Has anybody ever conducted a correlation study concerning chess problems and dementia?
"Construction Task" would seem a fair classification, but how to define this term?
Have not all compositions endured a construction task, in order that they themselves might be realized?
The truth is, this term is synonymous with saying: "this problem contains no inherent value, except as a beautiful expression of the challenges overcome, in its realization."
This begs the question: as opposed to ... ?
We are all construction tasks, and from that process of discovering ourselves, all value is derived.
Manipulated evaluation in the chess problem commodities market is what causes us to forget just what became of Clarence Beeks.
| | | (28) Posted by Geir Sune Tallaksen Østmoe [Monday, Jun 23, 2014 11:12] |
Thank you for posting, Joost. Very nice position!
| | | (29) Posted by Frank Richter [Monday, Jun 23, 2014 12:07] |
Formally is 1.e2-e3 history, or not?
But you are right, the whole chess problem classification is far from to be perfectly. An impressive example is FIDE Album 1998-2000, G142-G147 s# by S. Smotrov. The fairy element of this problems is the use of one, two or three fairy pieces, all solutions are forced and give an very orthodox impression ...
| | | (30) Posted by Hauke Reddmann [Monday, Jun 23, 2014 12:48] |
"This problem contains no inherent value, except as a beautiful expression of the challenges overcome, in its realization." obviously isn't limited to *construction*
tasks. I know enough 2# theme tasks which fit (and Sir Jeremy Morse also wears
his heart on his sleeve in his Task book, when it comes to this matter).
You can generalize to Fine Art (worlds tiniest sculpture or suchlike) and
to Sports: what's the inherent value of Bob Beamon jumping 8.90m? (My age
shows through, the actual value I had to wiki :-)
Well, unless the inherent value is "Neener, neener, I got 40 QQ and you don't,
bow to my superior intellect" (and I'm CLEARLY on top of such childish
reaction, right? ;-) then the inherent value is, well, exactly what Kevin says.
At least it's simple math to count off which one is the better task, no
lengthy art discussion needed. (Of course the better task can be the worse
problem, art-wise.)
Personally I see composing tasks as fun (insofar ardent work is fun :-).
I never was a competition to, say, Mansfield, art-wise, or to, say, Mari,
originality-wise, but maybe I can beat Loschinski once in my life :-)
Hauke
| | | (31) Posted by seetharaman kalyan [Monday, Jun 23, 2014 20:37] |
@ Hauke
>>>I never was a competition to, say, Mansfield, art-wise, or to, say, Mari,
originality-wise,
Well... can there be art without originality?
| |
No more posts | Page: [Previous] [Next] 1 2
MatPlus.Net Forum Competitions Schwalbe Theme Tourney 213 |
|
|
|
ISC 2024
